Decision Support Systems in Water Resources Planning and Management: Stakeholder Participation and the Sustainable Path to Science-Based Decision Making - Efficient Decision Support Systems: Practice and Challenges from Current to Future - page 431

uncertain parameters and how model results should be displayed and visualized. At every
meeting, the modeler would present the inclusion of last meeting's decisions into the DSS
model, review them with the group and discuss the next steps of model construction,
making it a collaborative, participatory and transparent endeavor (Serrat-Capdevila et al.,
2009).
The Cooperative Modeling Group in the Upper Rio Grande is the equivalent to the
Technical Committee in the Upper San Pedro. In both settings, these technical groups were
in charge of developing and synthesizing the technical and scientific information that would
be the basis of the planning process, working with the DSS model development, and other
related tasks. In both cases, there was an effort to build public confidence and trust in the
planning model (it properly addressed the issues at hand) as well as a sense of ownership
(the model and the management alternatives were distilled from everyone's concerns and
views).
Although the planning processes in the Rio Grande and the San Pedro River are the result of
different institutional drivers (Statewide planning initiative in NM vs. basin initiative to
meet a federal mandate in the San Pedro), the planning is structured around parallel
organizations with similar roles. Although neither the MRGWA nor the USPP have any
powers to impose policies or have any decision-making status, their individual member
entities may have such powers within their particular jurisdictions. The understanding that
comes from having to work together within a collaborative setting is key to influencing each
other's work in terms of what actions are or are not sustainable or convenient. Most
importantly, these planning and decision-support processes provide the opportunity to
engage both the public and the actual decision-makers well before decisions need to be
made. Thus the process itself, even long before the completion of the DSS product, will
likely have significant positive contributions, and the way it is conducted will have
important implications. The understanding of the physical system, of what is or not
convenient for the common good, and of other stakeholders' needs and concerns can
facilitate the finding of tradeoff solutions among competing needs.
For the interested reader, Serrat-Capdevila et al. (2009) provides an analysis of the lessons
learned and the contributions of the participatory process by which the DSS model in the
San Pedro basin was developed. Cockerill et al. (2006) presents the feedbacks from the
Cooperative Modeling Team in the Upper Rio Grande.
4.3 Shared vision planning
There have been many efforts from varying perspectives to establish a methodological
framework for science-based collaborative planning and decision-making. Liu et al. (2008)
present an excellent study of integrated modeling to support natural resource management.
Their work is presented from an academic perspective and a desire to improve the
credibility, legitimacy and saliency of scientific information so that decision-makers use it.
They frame their work within the setting of participatory processes but focus their efforts on
the contributions of an integrative modeling approach. Mahmoud et al. (2009) has a broader
scope, placing integrative modeling approaches as a tool to support scenario development
for decision making. They emphasize the need for stakeholder input in order for the
scenario analysis to be useful to decision-making.
Perhaps the most widely used participatory planning methodology in the US has been
Shared Vision Planning (SVP). The main difference with respect to Liu et al. (2008) and